May 13, 1912 (3)

Mr. JACKSON. I have no time to yield. ·

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Virginia declines . es to yield.

l\fr. SAUNDERS. This House has some Members who have been here long enough to have participated in the debate on the force bill. There are many others who followed the course of the same debate, and we all know that when that bill was before this body, and the subject of discussion, the advocates of the measure, relied exclusively upon the provision relating to the manner of holding elections, to justify its objectionable provisions. You gentlemen say that the days of the force bill will never return. Why then do you desire to retain a provision upon which the authority to enact such a bill rests, and rests e.xcl usi vely '!

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamentally true that no constitution should include any provision that undertakes to establish relations, and afford authority that are insusceptible of exact ascertainment. If the gentlemen on that side are sincere, and the gentlemen on this side are equally sincere, in believing that never again will the effort be made to enact a force bill, then take advantage of this era of good feeling to strike from the Constitution the clause which continues the possibility of such a measure as the outcome of some future Congress not so happily constituted. · Now is the time to stand by our former action. Never fear that our consistent adherence to the attitude embodied in the passage of the House resolution, will cause us to lose this great, this progressive, this fundamental measure of reform in the method of selecting Senators of the United States.

The suggestion that the other body will kill the whole proposition unless we agree to the Bristow amendment, should not influence our action. This movement will not die in that fashion. .A. temporary reverse is often the prelude of a more complete and glorious victory. [ApplP•1se.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

l\fr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I now yield eight minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MANN].

Mr . .l\fANN. l\Ir. Speaker, during my term of service in this House the House has passed three or four or five times a resolution for an amendment to the Constitution to provide for the direct election of Senators. Every time that that resolution has been passed, previous to this Congress, it has been passed in substantially the form of the present Senate amendment. On each of these occasions when the resolution was passed in a Republican House I did not hear the gentleman from Georgia [lli. BARTLETT] or any other gentleman from the South express opposition to the resolution or express fear of its effect.

These resolutions were each passed practically by unanimous consent in the Hou e, practically by unanimous vote in the House, and each time the resolution passed it involved precisely the same question that is now presented before the House by the Senate re olution.

I fail to understand why gentlemen, when these resolutions were in the House before, did not express opposition to the resolutions if they were opposed to them on the merits of the plause.] proposition. Each of these former resolutions died without action of the Senate.

We have now passed a resolution in the House which has been passed with an . amendment in the Senate, and for the first time, except when it was sent to conference, for the first time in the history of the Republic we have an opportunity to-day to e"Ventuate into a passed resolution and present a question to the States that we have been urging in this House for . years [applau e], and when the supreme moment comes ; whe.n the final opportunity offers itself, gentlemen who sat silent in their seats before, now find imaginary, ghost-like objections to the proposition. [Applause.]

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SAUNDERS] who has just .Mr. RUCKER spoken seems to assume that the original House resolution amended the provision of the Constitution to which he referred, . but it does not do so at all. The provision of the Constitution giving Congress the power to fix the time, place, and manner of electing Members of the House is not proposed to be changed by the House resolution. The authority under which the force · bill was legislated would still remain in the Constitution. The objections are imaginary; they are not well founded. We ought to preserve to the General Government at all times the supreme right in the last resort to preserve its existence by controlling the manner of elections, if it becomes necessary. No one believes that in our day it will become nece sary to control the manner of elections in the States, but who can predict what may happen in the far future in some particular State? I am in favor of preserving the authority to the General Government, and in favor to-day, now, while we have the chance, of passing a resolution which will submit to the States a popular and needed reform-the election of Senators by the people. [Applause.] Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. .

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri has 25 minutes remaining.

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the gentleman from Missouri propose to close with one speech?

Ur. RUCKER of Missouri. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. HARDY].

Mr. HARDY. l\lr. Speaker, of course this question can not be argued in 4 minutes, but it may be illustrated. A.t present, under our Constitution, the Senate of the United States is chosen by the legislatures of the different States, and under that express provision of the Constitution there has never been found any means by which the Federal Government can project itself into the election of Senators by the presence of either troops or the judging of the qualifications of electors, or the appointment of supervisors of elections or judges of elections, or the use of United States mar.shals. With the Bartlett amend- . ment we may obtain the election of Senators by direct vote of the people and yet preserve to the States the same , sole State control of such elections as we have now. But without that amendment a new element is injected into the election of Senators to wit the Federal power to provide the qualification of electors of Senators, the Federal appointment of supervisors of the election of Senators and judges of elections, the use of United States marshals, and the use of the United States troops at the election of Senators whenever the party in power nationally may be tempted to exercise such power. Whether this may happen next year or 20 years from now I know not.

Now, the illustration I wish to make is this. It is an old story, but it puts the question before us clearly: A. simpleminded youth on one occasion was dividing the flocks of his father with a wiser brother. There was one magnificent sheep in the bunch that Simple Billy loved to distraction. The wiser brother divided the sheep into two :flocks and placed this magnificent sheep in among a lot of poor, scabby sheep, and then he said to Billy, "Take your choice." Simple Billy studied long, but at last he turned himself sadly from his much-loved favorite. . With sorrow and longing he looked at his sheep and said, "I love you, but I can't love your company."

Now, the election of Senators by direct vote of the people is my desire, but you include in the plan of that election the · scabby sheep of the power of the Federal Government to provide qualifications for electors; you put in the scabby sheep that authorizes the establishment of supervisors of elections; you put in the scabby sheep that will authorize the Federal Government to appoint judges of elections; you put in the scabby sheep that will authorize the Federal Government to appoint United States marshals to supervise elections and place the military authorities and troops of the Federal Government in charge of the elec­ ·tion of Senators. For one I may love the magnificent sheep as did Simple Billy, but I do not like the company he is in. [ApFor one, Mr. Speaker, I will not cast my vote to tear down the temple in which is the last refuge of State sovereignty. [Applause.] I will maintain as far as I know the inviolable autonomy of indestructible States; I will spell Nation with a big "N," but also spell State with a big "S." [Applause.]

No man can say what the future may bring forth, and because all is peaceful now is no reason we may not have evils to encounter in the future; not in the South alone, but in the West and in the North. [Applause.] In this measure, without the Bartlett amendment, we attack the very corner stone upon which the indestructibility of the States rests and pa·rn the way for their destruction. of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CONRY].

Mr. CONRY. Mr. Speaker, when this proposition ca.me up before the House for consideration originally, I voted for it, because I believed then, as I believe now, that the ~reation of power upon the theory that it is not going to be exercised or employed is a principle that is wrong and pernicious in government. It is an untenable principle, and the elimination of such a provision from the Constitution is an imperative necessity. There were two great reforms contemplated by that legislation. First, the election of Senators by direct vote of the people [applause], and, secondly, the elimination from the Constitution of that provision which created a power and authority in the Government upon the theory that it would never be employed. Not being able to secure the accomplishment of both of these reforms, as a member of the conference committee 1 representing this House I yielded the lesser evil to the accomplishment of the greater reform, because I believed that the demands for the reform contemplated by this resolution appealed more forcibly and more potentially to the minds and the hearts and the patriotism of the American people than would the other one. [Applause.]

For that reason I come here to this House to-day prepared to vote for the proposition that is submitted to us by the com­ I mittee, knowing full well that ii that proposition is accepted by this House this great reform will assuredly be consummated. We will effect a reform, universally demanded, which has agitated the country for the last 25 or 30 years. And when legislators, honestly seeking true reform, are confronted by the condition which will guarantee the successful accomplishment of their purpose, it is their patriotic duty to yield a moiety of their demands in order that the paramount issue may be crystallized into law, and for that reason I will support, and I honestly believe every Member of this side of the House will be fully justified in supporting, the proposition which now calls for our wise and careful consideration. [Applause.]

The fears entertained by some Members on this side of the House are not justified by the . conduct of the Government in dealing with the constitutional regulations affecting the elec t ion of Senators. Never during the existence of the Republic have the powers intrusted to the Government by the Constitution been exercised to the detriment either of the people or of the States. The time for the accomplishment of this great reform is at hand. The opportunity to carry it into effect is here. Should we fail to take advantage of it, we will be held to a strict accountability for our stewardship before the country. There is but one course to follow, and that is the unqualified support of this resolution. In its support we will fulfill our pledges to the people and perform our patriotic duty to the States and to the Republic. [Applause.]

Mr. BARTLETT. I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [MI'. CANDLER].

Mr. CA.l\TDLER. Mr. Speaker, it is admitted, under the provisions of the Constitution as it stands now, that the Congress of the United States, if it saw proper to exercise the power conferred, can superintend and supervise the elections of Members of this House. It is admitted that under the provisions of the Constitution as it exists to-day the Congress of the United States has not the power to the same extent to supervise and superintend the election of United States Senators. The purpose when the Constitution was adopted was to preserve this · distinction, giving to the Government of the United States the right to supervise the election . n of the Members of the House, but denying to the Government of the United States the right. to supervise the election of United States Senators and reserving that right to the States. Then it is proposed by this provision, as it is written in this resolution, to give to the Congress of the United States the same right to superintend and supervise the election of Senators as it has to supervise the election of Members of the House. I favor the election of United States . Senators by the people. I have so voted and advocated it during my -political life, and I would gladly vote for the provision to-day as it passed the House and went to the Senate, but I regret I shall not have an opportunity to do so. The fact that l\fembers insist on keeping the provisions of this resolution as it exists to -d ay shows that they intend to take a way from the States some of the power which they now have and corre­ :;;pondingly confer it upon the Government -of ~e. United States. I can not conscientiously vote for that proposition, and I will not do so. I will never vote to take any power now conferred upon the States away and give it to the Federal Government

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time is there remaining?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has eight minutes left.

l\Ir. BARTLETT. l\fr. Speaker, the Democratic platform of 1908 contains -a provision which is as follows:

Believin"" with Jefferson, in "the support of the State governments in all their' rights as the most competent administrations for our domesti c concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencie s" and in "the preservation of the General Government in whole constitutional vigor as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad . ,, we are opposed to the centralization implied in the suggestion now frequently made, that the powers of the General Government should be extended by judicial construction.

'.M:r. Speaker, the Democratic .caucus that met in this Hall l immediately on the assembling of this Congress declared in favor of certain measures, and declared in favor of the Rucker bi11 which passed this House, and this House, on the 13th of ' R k b'll d ted d th y :April, voted for the UC er I an VO own amendment which is identical in word, in language, and ID every way 'with the proposed amendment. The bill' then went · d th S t dd d b tituted f o to the Senate, an e ena e a e or su s or our the Bristow amendment, and on the 21st day of June, 1911, each Member on this side of the House, by a majority of 60, voted against this identical proposition, and now, with the hands of this House tied by caucus, with the direction by a unanimous vote of the caucus to stand and vote for the original Rucker bill we come in here to-day and we find the gentleman from Missouri and the Democratic floor leader on this side of the House advocating that which the Democratic caucus refused to advocate and advocating that which he voted against in a Democratic caucus, and again on the 13th day of April and on the 21st day of June, 1911. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is the duty -Of this House, because the Senate has seen fit to vote upon an amendment which has twice been voted down, which finds no place in the Democratic caucus, to now support it because the Senate upon one vote declines to recede. Shall we surrender tamely, supinely, and cowardly the position of the House to the Senate? Ah, Mr. Speaker, I regret to ·see the gentleman from Alabama take the position that he did. I not state that it is a disappointment to me, because that IS immaterial, but I had reason to hope, I had his assurance that this amendment that I offered would be voted for and supported by him. I have no criticism to make upon his change of opinion, because he had the right to make that change, but it is fortunate for the gentleman from .Alabama that he did not make that speech 10 d ays ago .

l\1r. Speaker, it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution that Congress should control or regulate the election of Representatives in Congress except when the States fail e d or neglected to make the necessary regulations as to the hold ng such elections. AS showing this intent, I quote the followi ng :

The convention of the State of South Carolina used this language when it passed upon the question of the adoption of the Constitution. In its articles of adoption the State said:

"And whereas it i s essential to the preservation of the rights reserved to the several States and the freedom of the people, under the operation of a General Government, that pie right ofiRrescribing .the manner, time, ~g~v~i~c~s~~a~~ b~;n~n ~ix~~ecfto~eto s; ~eerei~fyalol'it1: 1 ~~~~a~h~~ie~ This conventio~ doth declare that the same ought to remain to all posterity a perpetual and fundamental right in the local, exclusive of the inter fe rence of the General Government, except in cases where the leg1s- latu res of the States shall refuse or neglect to perform and fulfill the sam e according to the tenor of sa1d Constitution. '

Th~ State of Virginia, in its act of June 26, 1788, adopting the Constitu "That tion, Congress used this shall lan~age: not alter, modify, or interfere in the times, plac es, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representa- ~lv es, or either of them, except when the legislature of any State shall ~:g;:. ', refuse, or be disabled, by invasion or re . bellio.n, to prescri . be the

North Carolina adopted the Constitution in 1789, and in so doing used the same l a ngua ge that Virginia did, each of them expressing the same idea, that this dangerous grant of power in the Federal Government was only to provide against the contingency that the States themselves should refuse or fail to exercise it, and that Congress should not interfere in prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections except when the legislature of any State should neglect or refuse or be incapable to prescribe the same.

The State of New York, from which, as I said, I have copied this amendment, although it is almost in the same language in the resolutions adopted by the other States, ratified the Constitution on the 28th of July, 1788, and used this language in the act of ratification:

" Under these impressions"-

Which had been previously stated in the resolution-

Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid can not be abridged or violated, and tha.t the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution shall receive an early and mature consideration, we, the said delegates * * do by these presents assent to and ratify the said Constitution.

" In full confidence, nevertheless, that until a convention shall be called and convened for proposing amendments to the Constitution * * * that the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this State respecting the times, places, , anti manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives unless the legislature in this State shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose or from any circumstances be incapable of making the same, and that' in those cases such power will duly be exercised until the legislature of this State shall make provisions m the premises."

Rhode Island, June 26, 179 , used the same language as did the State of New York-only stronger.

Pennsylvania said, in the article adopting the Constitution :

"That Congress shall not have power to make or alter regulations concerning the time, place, and manner of electing Senators and Representatives, except in case of neglect or refusal by the State to make regulations for the purpose, and then only for such time as such neglect or refusal shall continue."

be State of Massachusetts, February 6, 1789, used this language:

"That Congress do not exercise the powers vested in them by the fourth section of the first article but in cases when a State shall neglect or refuse to make the regulations therein mentioned, or shall make . regulations subversive of the rights of the people to a free and equal representation in Congress, agreeably to the Constitution . "

And Massachusetts, in the same document, went on to say:

"Anc1 t he convention do, in the name and in behalf of the people of this Commonwealth, enjoin it upon their Representatives in Congress at all times, until the alterations and provisions aforesaid have been e o~g considered agreeably to the fifth article of said Constitution, to exert all their influence and use all reasonable and legal methods to obtain a ratification of said alterations and provisions, in such manner as is bill provided in said article."

New Hampshire ratified on June 21, 1788, and used in recommendation the · same language as did Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, what is the amendment I offer? I propose by this amendment to declare and say that the Congress shall not have the power to order or change the qualifications of the electors of a State. What Democrat will rise in his place here to-day and say be is in favor of the United States Congress changing or altering or providing for the qualifications of voters in the various States, or that power should not remain where it has been lodged since the foundation of this Government? The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly upheld the right of the States to regulate the " right of suffrage, and who among the Democratic majority will declare he is in favor of changing this law, as you will if you oppose my amendment? Stand up. I pause that you may do so. When you do, you mark yourself as not being in favor of a Democratic doctrine. What man is there on. this side that is in favor of the appointment of- supervisors of elections, judges of elections, and returning boards! What Democrat on this side is in favor of that? If there are any, stand up and say that you are in favor if it. What Democrat on this side is in favor of permitting the use of United States marshals and military forces and the Army of the United States at the polls during elections? If there be any Democrat who is in favor of it, stand up and have the nerve to say it All that the amendment I propose provides is that Congress shall not have authority hereafter to do these things. Do you Members from Indiana remember the prosecution of your citizens there under the Federal election law? Are you in favor of granting Congress that power under the · Bristow amendment? If you are, vote against my amendment.

Mr Speaker, I close this debate as I began. The people of Georgia, whom I have the honor, in part, to represent on this floor and whom I have endeavored faithfully, if not efficiently, t f 17 D t b f ·th b ·ron to represen or years, are emocra s Y a1 ' Y enn - ment, and by all the things that they hold holy and sacred. And l\Ir. Speaker our social system and local self-government will 1 be preserved' by the white people of the South, for ~emselves and their posterity in spite of all that can be said or done by busybodies or intermeddlers.

. . b h d . b d t The immutable laws of God can not e c ange o~ e made ~ o bend to serve the ideas or purposes of would-be philanthropists or pretended reformers.

T h e unmu · tabl e d ecrees o f p. rovi. ·d ence th a t m ak e the . . Ca.u - casian-the Anglo-Saxon-the superior race; that forbid its deterioration, by submission to an inferior race, have stood the test through the moral and physical convulsions of more than 20 centuries, and will stand the test of the centuries yet to - come, till-

The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,

The solemn temples, the great g-lobe itself,

. Yea, and all which it inherit, shall dissolve.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Georgia Ulr. BARTLETT] has expired.

Mr. . BARTLETT. l\Ir. Speaker, will the gentleman from Missouri [l\Ir. RucKER] yield me one minute of his time?

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I will.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we propose to stand by the Democratic Party, but, above all, we propose to stand by that determination we made during the trying years of the reconstruction period and have kept through all the years, to preserve inviolable the white supremacy . and the Caucasian control of our section. And now in this hour, when our own party associates would again subject us to the like dangers--

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

Lest we forget, lest we forget.

[Applause.]

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RucKER] has 21 minutes remaining.

[Mr. RUCKER of Missouri addressed the House. See Appendix.]

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I am advised that there are a good many Members in the House who would like to extend remarks in the RECORD, both for and against this Cravens amendment; therefore I ask unanimous consent that any Mem· ber may have five legislative days within which to extend remarks.

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the gentleman mean those who have spoken upon the measure? .

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. No; any Member.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri asks unan­ Alexander imous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to extend or to print remarks in the RECORD.

Mr. MANN. On this subject?

· The SPEAKER. On this subject. Is there objection? [After Anthony a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. The previous question has been ordered.

Mr. SAUNDERS. I wish to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia be reported.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk, with-0ut objection, will again re· port the motion of the gentleman from Georgia. The Chair wishes to state that the vote will first be taken on the motion of the gentleman from Georgia that the House concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, which the Clerk will report

The Clerk read as follows:

To concur in the Senate amendment with the following amendment: Cooper “Provided, That Congress shall not have the power or authority to Copley provide for the qualification of electors of United States Senators within Crago the various States of the United States, nor to authorize the appointment of supervisors of election, judges of election, returning boards to Cullop certify the results of any such election, nor to authorize the use of Currier United States marshals or the military forces of the United States, or troops of the United States at the polls during the said election."

Mr. Mil""N. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. M.ANN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RucKER] moves that the House recede from its disagreement. Now, the motion of the gentleman from Georgia, if put at this time, must be also that the House recedes from its disagreement and concurs in the amendment with an amendment, because the first thing the House has to do is to recede.

Mr. BARTLETT. I thought I put it in proper form. It is a difference of tweedledee and tweedledum.

l\Ir. l\IA : MANN. We are in disagreement with the Senate amendment, and we must first recede before we can agree to it.

Mr. BARTLETT. I yield to the superior knowledge of the gentleman from Illinois in parliamentary law.

Mr. MANN. I suggest that the gentleman add to his motion a motion to recede.

Mr. BARTLETT. I will if . it will not lose its preferential status.

Mr. l\IANN. Oh, no.

Mr. BARTLETT. Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con­ Brown sent to modify my amendment and move that the House recede and concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk, without objection, will add to Burke, S. Dak . . the gentleman's motion that the House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment with the following amendment. The Clerk will report the motion as it now stands.

The Clerk read as follows :

That the House recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment a.nd concur in the Senate amendment, with the following amend­ - r ment, etc .

The SPEAKER. The question now is on the motion of the gentleman from Georgia.

The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes seemed to have it.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 89, nays 189, answered "present" 5, not voting 109, as follows:

YEAS-80.

Adumson Doughton Hughes, Ga. Saunders Aiken, S. C. Dupre Hull Sherley Bartlett Edwards · Humphreys, Miss. Sims Beall, '.feL Ellerbe Jacoway · Sisson Bell, Ga. Estopinal Johnson, Ky. Slayden Blackmon Faison Jones Small Booher Ferris Kabn Smith, Tex. Brantley Finley Kitchin Stedman Broussard Flood, Va. Know land Stephens, Miss. Bulkley Floyd, Ark. Korbll Stephens, Tex. Byrnes, S. C. Garner · Lee, a. Taggart Byrns, Tenn. Garrett Lever Talbott, Md. Callaway Glass Linthicum Thomas Candler Goodwin, Ark. Macon Tribble Can tr Ht Gregg, Tex. Moore, TeL Turnbull Carter Hardy Oldfield Watkins Clayton Harrison, Miss. Padgett Webb Collier Harrison, N. Y. Pag~ Wickliffe Covington Hay Pou Withers~oon Hayes Ransdell, La. Young, ex. Dent Holland Roddenbery Dickson, Miss. Houston Rothermel Dies Howard Rouse

NAYS-189.

Adair Esch Kon op Rainey Ainey Evans Kopp Raker Akin,N. Y. Farr Lafferty Rauch

Fergusson La Follette Redfield

Allen Fitzgerald Lawrence Rees Anderson, Minn. Fordney Lee, Pa. Reilly Anderson, Ohio. lt~ornes Lenroct Heyburn Ans berry Foss Levy Ro be1·ts, Mass.

Foster Lewis Rn bey

Ashbrook Fowler Lindbergh Rucker, Colo. Austin Francis Lloyd Rucker, Mo. Barchfeld Fr e nch Lo beck Russell Barnhart Fuller Loud Scully Bartholdt Gallagher McCall Sharp Boehne Gardner, N. J. McCoy Sherwood Borland George l\fc·Dermott Slemp Bowman Good McGillicuddy Sloan Buchanan Gould McGuire, Okla. Smith, J. M. C. Burke, Wis. Graham McKenzie Steenerson Burleson Gray McKinney Stephens, Cal. Butler Green, Iowa McLaughlin Stephens, Nebr. Cannon Greene. Mass. Madden Sterling Cary Gregg, Pa. Maguire, Nebr. Stevens, Minn. Catlin Hamill Mal by Ston e Cline Hamilton, Mich. Mann · Sweet Connell Hamilton, W. Va. Martin, Colo. Talcott, N. Y. Conry Hamlin Martin, S. Dak. Taylor, Colo.

Hanna Miller Thayer

Harris Mondell '.filson

Hartman Moon, Pa. Towner

Crumpacker Haugen Morgan Townsend

Hayden Morrison Tuttle

Heald Morse, Wis. Underhill Dalz e ll Hel"esen Moss, Ind. Underwood Daugh e rty Henry, Conn. Murray Utter Davis, Minn. Henry, TeL Neeley Vare Davis, W. Va. Hensley Nelson Warburton De For es t Higgins Norris Wedemeyer Denver Hill Nye White Dickinson Hobson Olmsted Wilder Difenderfer Howell Parran Willis Dixon, Ind. Hughes, N. J. Payne Wilson, Ill. Dodds Jackson Pepper W1lson, Pa. Donohoe Kendall Peters Wood, N. J. Dor e mus Kennedy Post Young, Kans. Driscoll, D. A. Kent Pray Driscoll, M. E. Kinkaid, Nebr. Prince Dyer Kinkead, N. J. Prouty

ANSWERED " PRESENT "-5.

Davenport Dwight Gillett Weeks Davidson

NOT VOTING-109.

A.mes Clark, Fla. Gudger Lafean Andrus Claypool Guernsey Lamb Ayres Cox, Ind. Hammond Langham Bates Cox, Ohio Hardwick Langley Bathrick Curley Hawley Legare Berger Curry Heflin Lindsay Bradley Danforth Helm Littlepage Draper Rinds Littleton Browning Fairchild Howland Longworth Burgess Fields Hubh:mi- McCreary Burke, Pa. Focht Hugh e s, W. Va. McHenry Gardner, Mass. Humphrey, Wash. fcKellar Burnett Godwin, N. C. James McKinley Calder Goeke John on, S. C. l\Icl\Iorran Campbell Goldfogle Kindred Maher Carlin Griest Konig Matthewa

Mays Porter Sheppard Taylor, Ala. Moon, Tenn. Powers Simmons Taylor, Ohio. Moore, Pa. Pujo Smith, Saml W. Thistlewood :Mott Randell, Tex. Smith, Cal. Volstead Murdock Richardson Smith, N. Y. Vreeland Need ha m Riordan ;Sparkman Whitacre O'Sh aune ssy Roberts, Nev. Speer Wilson, N. Y. Pal mer Robinson Stack Woods, Iowa Pat Pn, N . Y. Rodenberg Stanley Young, Mich. Patt on, Pa. Sabath Sulloway Pick ett Sells Sulzer Plumley Shackleford Switzer

So (two-thirds not having voted therefor) the amendment of the gentl~man from Georgia [Mr. BABTLETr] was rejected. The Clerk announced the following pairs :

On this vote :

Mr. PATTEN of New York with Mr. FAIRCHILD. For one week : Mr. BROWN with Mr. LANGHAM. Until May 21: Mr. BURGESS with Mr. WEEKS. For two weeks: Mr. SHACKLElmRD with Mr. DRAI'EB. Until further notice : · :&fr. BATHIUCK with Mr. SAMUEL W. SMITH. Mr. O’SHAUNESSY with Mr. CALDER. l\fr. Cox of Indiana with Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. FIELDS with llr. LANGLEY. l\1r. SHEPPARD with Mr. Bares. Mr. Cox of Ohio with Mr. TAYLOR of Ohio. Mr. MAYS with Mr. THISTLEWOOD. Mr. SABATH with 1\Ir. MATTHEWS. Mr. DAVENPORT with Afr. BURKE of South Dakota. l\1r. PuJo with Mr. 1\101\IoRR.AN. Mr. AYRES with Mr. SPEER. Mr. BURNETT With M1·. McCREARY. Mr. CARLIN with 1\lr. AMES. Mr. CLAYPOOL with Mr. BROWNING. Mr. LITTLEPAGE with Mr. GRIEST. ' Mr. CURLEY with Mr. FOCHT. l\Ir. GoEKE with Mr. GUERNSEY. Mr. GoLDFOGLE with Mr. HrNDs. Mr. GUDGER with Mr. HOWLAND. Mr. HAMMOND with l\Ir. HUBBARD. Mr. LEGARE with l\Ir. McKINLEY. 1\Ir. LINDSAY with Mr. MOTT. M.r. McHENRY with l\Ir. l\fmmoaK. Mr. McKELLAR with Mr. NEEDHAM. 1\lr. MAHER with Mr. PICKETT. Mr. SMITH of New York with Mr. RoBEBTS -0f Nevada. Mr. STACK with Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. STANLEY with Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. SULZER with Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. TAYLOR of Alabama with Mr. SWITZER. Mr. WHITACRE with Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. Mr. WILBON of New York with Mr. Bumm of Pennsylvania. Davidson l\fr. CLARK of Florida with Mr. LoNGWORTH. Mr. JAMES with Mr. PATTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. ROBINSON with Mr. WOODS of Iowa. Mr. PALMER with Mr. MOORE of Pennsylvania. Mr. HEFLIN with Mr. LAFEAN. Mr. GODWIN of North Carolina with Mr. VREELAND. Mr. RANDELL of Texas with l\Ir. SELLS. Mr . RICHARDSON with Mr. MARTIN of South Dakota. Mr. MOON of Tennessee with l\Ir . SIMMONS. .Mr. KoNIG with Mr. HUMPHREY of Washington. Mr. KINDRED with Mr. PoRTER. Mr. JOHNSON of South Carolina with Mr. GILLETT. Mr. SPARKMAN with Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. HARDWICK with Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. HELM with Mr. RoDENBEBG. Mr. LITTLETON with Mr. DWIGHT. For the session : Mr. FORNES with Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. RIORDAN with Mr. A:NDRUS . The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER. The question recurs on the motion of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RUCKER] to rec.ede and concur.

Mr. RUCKER of l\IissourL Mr. Speaker, on that motfon I demand the yeas and nays .

The yeas - and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 238, nays -a9, answered "present " 5, not voting 110, as follows :

YEAS-238.

Adair Allen Ashbrook Beall, Tex. Aiken, S. C. Anderson, Minn. Austin Boehne Ainey Anderson, Ohio Barcbfeld Booher A.kin,~- Y. Ans berry Barnhart Bowman Alexander Anthony Bartholdt Buchanan

Bulkley Garner Lindbergh Rothermel Burke, Wis. Garrett . Lintllicum Rouse Burleson George . Lloyd Robey Butler Good Lo heck Rucker, Colo. Byrnes, S .. C. Gould Loud Rueker, Mo. Byrns, Tenn. Graham Mc Cal l Rus se ll Callaway Gmy McCoy Scully Cannon Gree~ Iowa McDermott Sharp Can trill Greene, Mass. McGillicuddy Sherley Cary Gregg, Pa. McGuire, Okla. Sherwood Catlin Guernsey - McKenzie Simmons Clayton Hamill McKinley Sims Cline Hamilton, Mich. McKinney Slemp Connell Hamilton, W. Va. McLaughlin Sloan Conry Hamlin Madden · Small Cooper Hanna Maguire, Nebr. Smith, J. 1'!. -C. Copley Harris hlalby Smith, Tex. Covington Ranison, N. Y. Mann Stedman Crago Hartman Martin, Colo . Steenerson Cravens Haugen Martin, S . Dak. Stephens, Cal Crumpacker Hayden Miller St ephe ns, Neb r. Cullop Hayes Mondell Stephens, Tex. Currier Heald Moon, Pa. Sterling Dalzell Helgesen M-0on, Tenn. Stevens, Minn. Daugherty Henry, Conn. Morgan Stone Davis, Minn. Henry, Tex. Morrison Sweet Davis, W. Va. Hensley Morse, Wis. Taj!~art Denver Higgins Moss, Ind. Talbott, Md. Dickinson Hill Murray Talcott, N. Y. Difenderfer Hobson Neeley Taylor, CoJo. Dixon, Ind. Houston Nelsoa Thayer Dodds Howell Ncfrris Thistle wood Donohoe . Hughes, N. J. Nye Thomas Doremus Hull Olmsted Tilson Doughton Jackson Padgett Towner Driscoll, D. A. Johnson, Ky. Page Townsend Driscoll, M. El. Jones Parran Tutt!e Dyer Kahn Payne Underhill Ellerbe Kendall Pep~r Underwood Esch Kennedy Peters Utter Evans Kent Post Volsb•,ad Farr Kinkaid, Nebr. Pou Warburton Fergusson Kinkead, N. J~ Powers Watkins l!"'erris K:irehin Pray Webb Finley Know land Prince Wedemeyer Fitzgerald • Kon op Prouty White Fornes Kopp Rainey Wickliffe Foss Korbly Raker· Wilder Foster La Follette Ransdel4 La. Willis ,,. Fowler Lawrence Rauen Wilson. Pa. Francis Lee, Pa. Redfield Wood, N. J. French Lenroot Rees Young, Kans. Fuller Lever Reilly Young, Tex. Gnllagher Levy 'Reyburn Gardner, N. J. Lewis Roberts, Mass.

NAYS-3~.

Adamson Dupr~ Harrison, Miss. Oldfield Bartlett Edwards Hay Roddenbery Bell, Ga. Estopinal Holland Saunders Blackmon Faison Howard Sisson Brantley Flood, Va. Hughes, Ga. Slayden Broussard Floyd, Ark. Humphreys, Miss. Stephens, Miss. Candler GJass :Jacoway Tribble · Collier Goodwin, Ark. Lee, Ga. Turnbull Dent Gregg, Tex. Macon Witherspoon Dickson, !fiss. Hardy Moore, T~

.ANSWERED "PRESENT "-5.

Davenport Dwight Gillett Weeks

NOT VOTING-110.

Ames Fairchild Langley Roberts, Nev. Andrus Fields Leg a.re Robinson Ayres Focht Lindsay Rodenberg Bates Fordney Littlepage Sa bath Bathrick Gardner. Mass. Littleton Sells Berger Godwin, N. C. Longworth Shackleford Borland Goeke McCreary Sheppard Bradley Goldfogle McHenry Smith, S:.i,w.l. W. Brown Griest Mc.Kellar Smith, C2\}. Browning Gudger McMorran Smith, N. L Burgess Hammond Maher Sparkman Burke, Pa. Hardwick Matthews Speer Burke, S. Dak. Hawle_y Mays Stack Burnett Heflin Moore, Pa. Stanl~y Calder Helm Mott Sulloway Campbell Hinds Murdock Sulzer Carlin Howland Needham Switzer Carter Hubbard 0'£haunessy Taylor, Ala. Clark, Fla. Hughes, W. Va. Palmer Taylor:. Ohio. Claypool Humphrey, Wash. Patten, N. Y. Vare Cox, Ind. ;fames Patton, Pa. Vreeland Cox, Ohio Johnson, S. C. Piek-ett Whitacre Cm·Iey Kindred Plumley Wilson, Ill Curry Konig Port~r Wilson, N. Y. Danforth Lafean Pujo Woods, Iowa De Forest Lafferty Randell, Tex. Young, Mich. Dies Lamb Richardson Draper Langham Riordan

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the motion of the gentleman from Missouri !)fr. RucKER] was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following additional pairs :

Mr. RICHAIIDSON with Mr. CALDER. '

Mr. BoKLAND with Mr. CmmY_ Mr. DIES with Mr. MOTT. Mr. GOEKE with Mr. PLUMLEY. For th~ vote: 1\Ir. O'SHAUNESSY with Mr. WILSON of Illinois. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I desire to vote ' : 'aye."

The SPEAKER. Was the gentleman in the House when his preme Court. name was called?

Mr. CARTER. I was called from the House during the latter · part of the previous roll call by two gentlemen from Oklahoma, Hampton Tucker and D. C. McCurtain, of McAlester, to discuss some pending legislation, and when I returned my name had just been passed. I was absent only a few moments and was here during the major portion of the time of both roll calls. I do not like the Bristow amendment, but I strongly favor the main proposition, the election of Senators by direct vote of the people, and I desire to vote " aye" if it is now possible to do so.

The SPEAKER. Then the gentleman does not bring himself within the rule.

Mr . O'SHAUNESSY. Mr. Speaker, I desire to vote "aye."

The SPEAKER. Was the gentleman in the Hall listening The SPEAKER. when his name was called? '

l\fr. O'SHAUNESSY. I do not think I was, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. . The gentleman does not qualify.

The announcement of the v.ote as above recorded was received with applause.

Mr. SISSON. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. SISSON. Article V of the Constitution requires that two-thirds of both Houses, when they deem it necessary, may propose amendments to the Federal Constitution. Now, twothirds of both Houses have not voted for this proposition.

The SPEAKER. It has always been held that two-thirds of the House means two-thirds of a quorum.

Mr. SISSON. Mr. Speaker, that can not be the proper construction in reference to this article, but because every other-.-­

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman suspend half a minute?

Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that nothing is in order except the announcement of the result of the vote .

Mr. SISSON. I want to be heard 6n this, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will be heard on the point of order. The Chair wishes to state the ruling. It has been held uniformly, so far as the Chair knows, that two-thirds of the House means two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being present. ·

Mr. SISSON. Now, 1\fr. Speaker, I am not going to worry the Chair with . comparing this article of the Constitution with the other articles of the Constitution where there have been a number of decisions of the Chair with reference to what constitutes a quorum. I ba · rn read the deeision-there has been but one, and that by Speaker Reed-consh·uing this particular clause of the Constitution. If the Chair shall hold with Speaker Reed on this proposition, we are in the absurd situa ­ tion that only the fraction of a vote more than one-third of the membership may pass a constitutional provision.

Article V of the Constitution is perfectly distinct. It says: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it nece sary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution.

It is not necessary to go further except to say in all other cases with reference to legislation it states that a majority shall be required to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and the passage of an ordinary bill requires only a majority of that quorum. But the language of the Constitution is such that it makes it absurd to say that a fraction of more than one-third of the membership of this House constitutes two-thirds of the House.

If the Chair should bold that the definition " the House " means simply a bare majority of the House, and does not constitute the entire membership of the House, then the ruling of Speaker Reed would be correct, but the House of Representatives ti ves is made up now of 394 Members. If you have . ve 394 · Members that constitute this House, then the entire membership of the House, under Article V, if it means anything, is required. Now, there are some other matters that might help us out on this matter. For example, the Supreme Court in passing upon one clause of the Constitution, in speaking of passing a bill over the veto of the President, says it shall be by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and . limitations prescribed in case of a bill. Now, the Constitution provides that - in case of a bill it only takes a majority to pass it. Therefore, the Supreme Court held in that case that two-thirds of a quorum was all that was necessary, and with that single exception there has never been any construction of Article V except that by Speaker Reed. ·

The SPEAKER. The Chair wm · ask the gentleman if it is not true that all the constructions he has · been able to find go one way? · Mr. SISSON. There is only one on this clause.

. The SPEAKER. The gentleman- j ust cited one from the Su­

Mr. SISSON. That was with reference to tlle passage of a bill over the veto of the President.

The SPEAKER. If it will bold on the passing of a bill o-ver the veto of the President, what reason is there that it would not hold good on this? · l\fr. SISSON. Because the Constitution specifically provides it shall be passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to rules and limitations we prescribed in case of a bill, and it only requires a majority of a majority to pass a bill. It only requires, in other word s , one more.

1\fr. RUCKER of Missouri. .Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman rise? l\fr. RUCKER of Missouri. I demand the r·egular order. The regular order is for the gentleman from Mississippi to discuss his point of order.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I did not know he made a point of order. .

Mr. SISSON. I did. It takes two-thirds of the number necessary to pass a bill in order to pass a bill over the President's veto. Now, in that case the Supreme Court, in arguing the question, argues at length, and but for the language provided in case of a bill it is perfectly clear the court would have held this language-" two-thirds of both Houses "-meant the entire membership of the House . .

If it means the entire membership of the House, then it takes 260-odd votes to pass this joint resolution. If the construction placed upon it by Speaker Reed is the proper construction, then we have an absurdity in the Constitution-that one more than one-third of the membership of this House can propose an amendment to the Federal Constitution, and, that being the case, this provision of the Constitution is meaningless when it requires two-thirds to pass it.

The SPEAKER. It has been held time out of mind that when the phrase or collocation of words, " the House of Representatives" is used, it means a quorum of the House-that is, 198 Members in this House. If it can do one thing with a bare quorum it can do anything.

Now, last Friday, for instance, they had precisely a quorum on a bill here. It is true that they had to wait an hour or so to get that 197 men. Now, if 99 had voted one way and 98 bad voted the other way, you would have had a bill passed by 99 votes out of 393 in the House; and what precedents there are, both of the Supreme · court and of the Speaker-because l\Ir. Speaker Reed rendered an opinion-held that in a situation like this "two-thirds" meant two-thirds . of those voting, provided it was a quorum.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. For · what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia rise?

l\Ir. BARTLETT. I ask the indulgence of the Speaker !or a moment, before he renders a decision; just a moment, Mr. Speaker. I am as much opposed to the adoption of this amendment as anyone, but I am also interested in having a correct decision made. I desire to say that, in my judgment, following the precedents of the House-and I have them before mewhen it is held that two-thirds are required to adopt an amendment to the Constitution, they mean two-thirds of those present, a quorum being present. I refer the Speaker to th e decision to be found in tlle fifth volume of Hinds' Parliamentary Precedents, section 7028 and following. · ·

The SPEAKER. The Chair has those before him.

l\fr. BARTLETT. It was held, · as there reported, that the Constitution requires two-thirds of those voting when a quorum is present. I am interested, ~r. Speaker, in having a proper ruling, and I doubt not the Chair will make it and decide that it requires two-thirds to recede from our disagreement and to concur in this amendment.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has stated that the final act in submitting a constitutional amendment requires two-thirds, and · this is the final act in submitting this amendment to the American people, so far as the House of Representatives and the Senate are concerned. [Applause.]

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. llr. Speaker, I move to reconsider and lay that motion on the table.

l\fr. SISSON. One moment, Ur. Speaker. I have gone carefully into these precedents, and with the exception of the decision by Speaker Reed there is no precedent on this particular article of the Constitution. In every other case there was some limitation in the clause, like the one to which I called the attention of the Chair. But in this particular clause of the Constitution there is no such limitation, and article 5 was placed there for the purpose of guarding the instrument as it was passed. I can not get any construction or any language in any other clause of the Constitution that would warrant the decision re a ched by Speaker Reed, because this language is perfectly specific, and it hinges, of course, on what constitutes the House of RepresentativeR

There was quite a discussion in the House at the time, and quite a discussion in the Senate upon the passage of one of the amendments in the Senate, and it was then contended by the better lawyers in the Senate that it required two-thirds of that body to pass a constitutional amendment. But that was in the days when tempests were brewing and the majority . was barely a majority; a quorum, but lacking a number of votes of being a majority of the entire Senate . That being true, if the Chair will examine carefully the precedents- he will find, that Speaker . Reed's decision was the only decision in this House that holds that the words "the House of Representatives" mean that the House is made up only of a quorum.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman and to the House that if the question had never been raised before, 11.lld Speaker Reed had never decided it, the present occupant of the Chair would decide it the very same way that Speaker Reed decided it. [Applause.] By the vote just taken the House votes to recede from its disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur in the Senate amendment, two-thirds having voted therefor. [Applause.]

On motion of Mr. RUCKER of Missouri, a motion to reconsider the last vote was laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky [l\Ir. JOHNSON], chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, is recognized.